On Nov 16, 5:05 am, Peter Clinch wrote:
Harry Brogan wrote:
I have to agree with Ed on this. Working towards safer and better
bike paths is the way to go.

The usual problem with bike paths is rights of way conflicts where
they inevitably meet roads. That creates junctions, and junctions
are where most accidents happen.
Go and spend some time in NL and you find that a fietspad, even as
well implemented as in the NL, does *not* isolate you from traffic.
However, in NL you find that the typical driver is a great deal
more aware of bicycles than pretty much anywhere else you may have
cycled, and I suspect that that is rather more to do with the low
accident rates. It is actually the case that plenty of roads in NL
don't have a fietspad alongside and, especially in older towns and
villages, you may well be sharing the roads with cars. That these
areas don't appear to be accident black spots further suggests that
it's the awareness of many Dutch drivers that makes the biggest
difference.

All to often we hear about the "I didn't see them" excuse.

And you hear that most at junctions, and with bike paths you've
still got junctions.

The person that hit me a couple of years ago tried to use that
excuse....at first....but then changed her story to the talking on the
cell phone excuse. Those need to be banned while you are driving the
car. There can't be a call that's so important that you can't pull
over to take it.

It's illegal to use a mobile 'phone (hands-free excepted, not
because it's safe but it's vitually impossible to detect and
enforce sensibly) in the UK, and I suspect quite a few other places
too. But you still see numpties on their 'phones, and they'll
still be using them as they go past the junctions of bike tracks
and roads that you'll have to use to negotiate a bike path network.

Not that bike tracks don't have their place: there are several I
use simply because they're plain /nicer/ to use, and that's reason
enough, but that's not the same as making me safer.

As for the thesis "bicycling is not safe", well, of course it
isn't. People get killed falling over stepping in and out of the
bath, so if taking a bath isn't safe why do you expect cycling to
be? Check out the fatlities in cars, no shortage, so in absolute
terms that's certainly not safe either.
The trick is whether it is safe /enough/. Consult the actual
accident statistics for your own area to find out who suffers how
much in different places. At least in the UK cycling is actually
remarkably safe when you look at the actual figures, even though
the public perception is it's terribly dangerous. Moral of that
one is you can't trust superficial perceptions.
From a UK perspective (and it's not necessarily the same
eveywhere, granted)http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582gives a more
balanced view than most people's perceptions IMHO.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Well, I knew the UK was a smarter place, not only because they have
tamed traffic to a higher degree, but also because they don't have a
Republican party.

Anyway, this assessment about Holland seems to support my idea TRAFFIC
TAMING, BIKE ROUTES AND BIKE LANES. Thank you!
Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota